...keeping Missouri on February 7.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
March Presidential Primary Bill from Missouri House Gets Thumbs Up from Senate Committee
The Missouri state Senate Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee today voted in favor of the House-passed bill to move the Show Me state presidential primary from February to March. HB 3, unchanged from the committee-amended version that passed the House, now moves on to the floor of the Senate for consideration. Given the speed with which this bill has made it through the House and to this point in the Senate, and the fact that the originally-passed, but vetoed elections bill (with presidential primary move provision) is still not on the veto session agenda, indications are that this bill will be passed and sent on to Governor Jay Nixon (D). The question then would be whether the presidential candidate filing fee change -- something that was not in the governor's call for a special session -- would be a big enough change to force another veto.
...keeping Missouri on February 7.
...keeping Missouri on February 7.
Ohio House Democrats Threaten March to May Presidential Primary Move
...or do they?
Various news outlets in Ohio are reporting a rift between state House Democrats and Republicans over the proposed redraw of the congressional districts in the Buckeye state. As ammunition in this fight, House Democrats are backing out of a deal on proposed legislation to move the Ohio presidential primary from March to May; a process that has become embroiled in controversy.
Initially part of a broader election law alteration, the presidential primary move has gotten caught up in a petition drive to put the entirety of the changes to the new law on the November 2012 ballot. Should the aforementioned petition effort meet the signature requirements by September 29, however, the changes in the law would not take effect pending the vote on the resulting ballot measure. In response, House and Senate leaders have opted to introduce legislation with the sole intent of moving the primary to May. The May date is preferred to the March primary date to ensure that local and state elections officials have the time necessary to adapt to the forthcoming changes to the Ohio state legislative and congressional districts.
Now, however, that seemingly simple legislative maneuver has gotten bogged down, in an ironic twist of fate, in a battle over the transparency behind the proposed newly drawn district lines. Ohio Democratic legislators are crying foul and are threatening to back out of a deal on the legislation to move the presidential primary back.
Let's dig into this a bit more because something about this just doesn't jibe well with FHQ's thinking on this. First of all, Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of the Ohio legislature. What does it matter that those majorities don't have Democratic support? The answer lies in a provision that in the bill that allows it to take effect immediately upon being signed. The bill has, in other words, been granted what in Ohio is called emergency status (see Article II of the Ohio Constitution). The catch here is that for any bill to pass with an emergency provision, it requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Republicans have a majority, but not that level of a supermajority to pass this without some Democratic help.
Still, what is the big deal here?
FHQ doesn't necessarily see the effectiveness of the threat. Bill, under the normal protocol in Ohio, take effect 90 days following the governor's signing of the legislation. Assuming the Republicans just go it alone, they could pass the bill through both chambers, send it on to Governor John Kasich (R), and wash their hands of the matter. If that happens by October 1, the bill would take effect on New Year's Eve, 2011.
...well before the May 8 primary.
The hang up is over the question of whether the delay in the law going into effect also affects the funding and training of local elections officials, for example. If elections preparations are not dependent upon something along those lines, the Ohio legislative Democrats might just be bringing a knife to a gun fight. This obviously bears watching because there are some background questions that need to be answered so that the public can have a full understanding of this supposed threat.
Given what we know, though, I don't know that what the Democrats in Ohio have here constitutes a threat.
Various news outlets in Ohio are reporting a rift between state House Democrats and Republicans over the proposed redraw of the congressional districts in the Buckeye state. As ammunition in this fight, House Democrats are backing out of a deal on proposed legislation to move the Ohio presidential primary from March to May; a process that has become embroiled in controversy.
Initially part of a broader election law alteration, the presidential primary move has gotten caught up in a petition drive to put the entirety of the changes to the new law on the November 2012 ballot. Should the aforementioned petition effort meet the signature requirements by September 29, however, the changes in the law would not take effect pending the vote on the resulting ballot measure. In response, House and Senate leaders have opted to introduce legislation with the sole intent of moving the primary to May. The May date is preferred to the March primary date to ensure that local and state elections officials have the time necessary to adapt to the forthcoming changes to the Ohio state legislative and congressional districts.
Now, however, that seemingly simple legislative maneuver has gotten bogged down, in an ironic twist of fate, in a battle over the transparency behind the proposed newly drawn district lines. Ohio Democratic legislators are crying foul and are threatening to back out of a deal on the legislation to move the presidential primary back.
Let's dig into this a bit more because something about this just doesn't jibe well with FHQ's thinking on this. First of all, Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of the Ohio legislature. What does it matter that those majorities don't have Democratic support? The answer lies in a provision that in the bill that allows it to take effect immediately upon being signed. The bill has, in other words, been granted what in Ohio is called emergency status (see Article II of the Ohio Constitution). The catch here is that for any bill to pass with an emergency provision, it requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Republicans have a majority, but not that level of a supermajority to pass this without some Democratic help.
Still, what is the big deal here?
FHQ doesn't necessarily see the effectiveness of the threat. Bill, under the normal protocol in Ohio, take effect 90 days following the governor's signing of the legislation. Assuming the Republicans just go it alone, they could pass the bill through both chambers, send it on to Governor John Kasich (R), and wash their hands of the matter. If that happens by October 1, the bill would take effect on New Year's Eve, 2011.
...well before the May 8 primary.
The hang up is over the question of whether the delay in the law going into effect also affects the funding and training of local elections officials, for example. If elections preparations are not dependent upon something along those lines, the Ohio legislative Democrats might just be bringing a knife to a gun fight. This obviously bears watching because there are some background questions that need to be answered so that the public can have a full understanding of this supposed threat.
Given what we know, though, I don't know that what the Democrats in Ohio have here constitutes a threat.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Still Non-Compliant, Arizona's Now Locked into a February 28 Presidential Primary Date
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer today signed a virtually meaningless proclamation establishing a February 28 presidential primary in the Grand Canyon state.1 The proclamation is next to meaningless because the primary was already set on that date based on the existing state elections law. However, it is significant in that it finally puts to rest the idea that Brewer could shift the primary up to a date earlier than February 28. Over this past weekend, the Arizona governor let pass the opportunity to move the primary up to as early as February 7.
But that speculation ends today, though it could have lasted another week and a half. The Arizona primary is now set on February 28, a week before all non-exempt states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) are able to hold primaries or caucuses. Pending potential moves in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin, the calendar could now conceivably be squeezed into February. Michigan will also be choosing a date in the February 28-March 6 window. But that is quite a bit of movement between now and the end of the month.
With Arizona locked in, though, the picture gets quite a bit clearer:
January 30: Iowa
February 7: New Hampshire
February 11: Nevada
February 18: South Carolina
February 21: Florida, Georgia
February 28: Arizona, Michigan
No, that doesn't get everything into February, but comes quite close. Nevada and South Carolina could be placed on the same date again in 2012 like in 2008, and move Iowa and New Hampshire into February. Of course, New Hampshire could fall back on its state law requiring a seven day buffer on either side of their primary date; meaning Nevada and South Carolina could crowd New Hampshire on the back end. That said, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner may not want to temp fate with the national parties by being a stickler on that buffer.
The RNC is pretty close to getting something very close to its ideal calendar out of this.
--
1 Here is the press release concerning the presidential primary:
But that speculation ends today, though it could have lasted another week and a half. The Arizona primary is now set on February 28, a week before all non-exempt states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) are able to hold primaries or caucuses. Pending potential moves in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin, the calendar could now conceivably be squeezed into February. Michigan will also be choosing a date in the February 28-March 6 window. But that is quite a bit of movement between now and the end of the month.
With Arizona locked in, though, the picture gets quite a bit clearer:
January 30: Iowa
February 7: New Hampshire
February 11: Nevada
February 18: South Carolina
February 21: Florida, Georgia
February 28: Arizona, Michigan
No, that doesn't get everything into February, but comes quite close. Nevada and South Carolina could be placed on the same date again in 2012 like in 2008, and move Iowa and New Hampshire into February. Of course, New Hampshire could fall back on its state law requiring a seven day buffer on either side of their primary date; meaning Nevada and South Carolina could crowd New Hampshire on the back end. That said, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner may not want to temp fate with the national parties by being a stickler on that buffer.
The RNC is pretty close to getting something very close to its ideal calendar out of this.
--
1 Here is the press release concerning the presidential primary:
Statement from Governor Jan BrewerArizona’s 2012 Presidential Primary
“Today I signed a proclamation establishing February 28 as the date of Arizona’s 2012 Presidential Preference Election. It has always been a priority of mine to ensure that Arizona and its voters play an influential role in the nomination process, and that Southwestern issues are addressed by the candidates in a meaningful fashion. I am confident both goals will be realized, given this primary date and the RNC’s preliminary selection of Arizona for a GOP presidential debate.
“Arizona will be a player in determining our nation’s next president. Over the next 14 months, the candidates would be wise to meet with our voters and become familiar with our issues. Many of these issues – whether illegal immigration, the housing crisis or Medicaid reform – have national implications.
“Arizona voters will be hearing from the presidential candidates in the months ahead. Now, it is the obligation of voters to make certain that they are educated on the issues when it comes time to
make their voices heard.”
Bill Introduced in Ohio Senate to Move Presidential Primary to May. ...again.
Ohio Senate President Pro Tempore Keith Faber (R-12th, Celina) today introduced legislation in the Ohio Senate to eliminate the March primary in the Buckeye state. Primaries for all offices would all take place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May instead of every primary election shifting to March in presidential years under the bill (SB 217).
Recall that the Ohio legislature previously moved the primaries to May earlier in the summer. But the overarching elections legislation (HB 194) that created that change also contained provisions that are now under attack on voting rights grounds. A petition being circulated across the Buckeye state would prevent the legislation in HB 194 from taking effect until it could appear on the 2012 general election ballot. In other words, the shift to a May primary would be nullified.
This new, clean bill should be expected to move fairly quickly through the legislature. Of course, we have all seen in Missouri how "fairly quickly" can morph into, well, not so quick, uh, fairly quickly.
Recall that the Ohio legislature previously moved the primaries to May earlier in the summer. But the overarching elections legislation (HB 194) that created that change also contained provisions that are now under attack on voting rights grounds. A petition being circulated across the Buckeye state would prevent the legislation in HB 194 from taking effect until it could appear on the 2012 general election ballot. In other words, the shift to a May primary would be nullified.
This new, clean bill should be expected to move fairly quickly through the legislature. Of course, we have all seen in Missouri how "fairly quickly" can morph into, well, not so quick, uh, fairly quickly.
John Coltrane or Tommy Flanagan? The Missouri General Assembly Special Session and the March Presidential Primary Bill
There is an old story about the recording of John Coltrane's Giant Steps. Pianist Tommy Flanagan obviously struggled with the progressions in the tune and it shows in the recording. Compared to the other solos throughout, Flanagan's is, well (diplomatically), lacking. The way FHQ has heard this told in the past is that Flanagan was out a little too late the night before, came in to the session late and Coltrane punished him by keeping the best of the bad takes. That the song and record went on to be celebrated in and out of jazz circles only added insult to injury for the pianist.
Now, FHQ is never one to fall in to discussions of classic jazz -- not here anyway -- but this story is a nice metaphor for what is happening during the current Missouri General Assembly special session. The Republican-controlled legislature is essentially taking the call for the special session from Governor Jay Nixon (D) and improvising off of it. As Rudi Keller points out in this morning's Columbia Daily Tribune, a governor typically makes the call and includes items in it that the legislature will deal with expeditiously. After all, the taypayers of Missouri are picking up the tab. The coordination between the executive and legislative branches, however, looks to be minimal, raising the specter of a longer-than-necessary special session. That has led to the improvisation on the part of the legislature. The only question is:
Are they producing Tommy Flanagan or John Coltrane?
In other words, is the legislature augmenting the legislative items specifically called for by Governor Nixon in ways that will ultimately win his approval or have they made changes that will be met with a veto?
I'll pass on the discussion of the more controversial business tax break legislation -- a bill that may struggle to pass -- and focus on the presidential primary legislation instead. The governor's call presented the legislature with a clean bill -- move the Show Me state presidential primary to March or leave it in February in violation of the national party rules. The House last week, however, widened the scope of the legislation to include a increase in the presidential candidate filing fee for the primary. Now, whether that amounts to a flubbed Tommy Flanagan piano solo or a John Coltrane sax solo on the other extreme will depend to a great degree on Jay Nixon's interpretation of the improvisations the General Assembly has made. The filing fee change may not derail the process, but bear in mind that the Senate has yet to consider the bill either. That will happen this week as will the scheduled veto session on September 14. The House already has a veto session agenda out, but the Senate does not. That House calendar does not, as of now, contain SB 282, the original elections overhaul bill the legislature passed with a provision to shift the presidential primary back by a month. An override is possible, but SB 282 will have to be added to the agenda and the Republican majority will have to find four Democrats in the House to vote for the override to pull it off.
The point is that there are some obstacles to the passage of this legislation. Passage of the move to March will depend on how Nixon interprets the changes to the call already made and those the Senate may add -- requiring further House consideration to reconcile -- in the process. The situation is fluid, but the bill to move the Missouri presidential primary to March is through one chamber and will be taken up and referred to committee in the Senate today. This bears watching simply because if the bill falls apart, Missouri will be positioned on February 7 on the presidential primary calendar next year. That obviously has the effect of definitively pushing the first four states, Florida and possibly Georgia into January.
For now at least, that is the less likely outcome. Nixon is more likely to get something closer to Coltrane than Flanagan, but that may change as this week progresses.
Now, FHQ is never one to fall in to discussions of classic jazz -- not here anyway -- but this story is a nice metaphor for what is happening during the current Missouri General Assembly special session. The Republican-controlled legislature is essentially taking the call for the special session from Governor Jay Nixon (D) and improvising off of it. As Rudi Keller points out in this morning's Columbia Daily Tribune, a governor typically makes the call and includes items in it that the legislature will deal with expeditiously. After all, the taypayers of Missouri are picking up the tab. The coordination between the executive and legislative branches, however, looks to be minimal, raising the specter of a longer-than-necessary special session. That has led to the improvisation on the part of the legislature. The only question is:
Are they producing Tommy Flanagan or John Coltrane?
In other words, is the legislature augmenting the legislative items specifically called for by Governor Nixon in ways that will ultimately win his approval or have they made changes that will be met with a veto?
I'll pass on the discussion of the more controversial business tax break legislation -- a bill that may struggle to pass -- and focus on the presidential primary legislation instead. The governor's call presented the legislature with a clean bill -- move the Show Me state presidential primary to March or leave it in February in violation of the national party rules. The House last week, however, widened the scope of the legislation to include a increase in the presidential candidate filing fee for the primary. Now, whether that amounts to a flubbed Tommy Flanagan piano solo or a John Coltrane sax solo on the other extreme will depend to a great degree on Jay Nixon's interpretation of the improvisations the General Assembly has made. The filing fee change may not derail the process, but bear in mind that the Senate has yet to consider the bill either. That will happen this week as will the scheduled veto session on September 14. The House already has a veto session agenda out, but the Senate does not. That House calendar does not, as of now, contain SB 282, the original elections overhaul bill the legislature passed with a provision to shift the presidential primary back by a month. An override is possible, but SB 282 will have to be added to the agenda and the Republican majority will have to find four Democrats in the House to vote for the override to pull it off.
The point is that there are some obstacles to the passage of this legislation. Passage of the move to March will depend on how Nixon interprets the changes to the call already made and those the Senate may add -- requiring further House consideration to reconcile -- in the process. The situation is fluid, but the bill to move the Missouri presidential primary to March is through one chamber and will be taken up and referred to committee in the Senate today. This bears watching simply because if the bill falls apart, Missouri will be positioned on February 7 on the presidential primary calendar next year. That obviously has the effect of definitively pushing the first four states, Florida and possibly Georgia into January.
For now at least, that is the less likely outcome. Nixon is more likely to get something closer to Coltrane than Flanagan, but that may change as this week progresses.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Missouri House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill
The Missouri House this afternoon passed the House Committee Substitute of HB 3.1 The special session bill would shift the Show Me state presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. For our purposes, in 2012, that would mean a move from February 7 to March 6 (Super Tuesday).
The bill now moves on to the Senate for consideration there. Hypothetically at least, a non-controversial bill -- one defined as such based on the fact that a bill moving the primary to March has already been passed but vetoed by the governor for different reasons -- like the presidential primary bill should be able to move through the state Senate. However, there have been roadblocks in the Senate on other bills during this first week of the Missouri General Assembly special session.
As Bob Priddy at MissouriNet points out, a veto override of SB 282 could also move the primary back to March as well. Of course, as FHQ mentioned earlier, that would require the votes of at least four Democrats in the House to pass muster. The Republican majorities in both Houses likely won't want to gamble with the date like that. HB 3 seems like more of a sure thing.
...at this point.
Like Wisconsin, Missouri moved into February for the 2004 cycle and is seeking to move back to March where the primary was in 2000.
--
1 The substitute bill inserted a clause raising the presidential primary filing fee to the bill that originally just shifted the presidential primary date and made a few other small changes to the state elections law. See more on the implications of the greater filing fee at Ballot Access News.
The bill now moves on to the Senate for consideration there. Hypothetically at least, a non-controversial bill -- one defined as such based on the fact that a bill moving the primary to March has already been passed but vetoed by the governor for different reasons -- like the presidential primary bill should be able to move through the state Senate. However, there have been roadblocks in the Senate on other bills during this first week of the Missouri General Assembly special session.
As Bob Priddy at MissouriNet points out, a veto override of SB 282 could also move the primary back to March as well. Of course, as FHQ mentioned earlier, that would require the votes of at least four Democrats in the House to pass muster. The Republican majorities in both Houses likely won't want to gamble with the date like that. HB 3 seems like more of a sure thing.
...at this point.
Like Wisconsin, Missouri moved into February for the 2004 cycle and is seeking to move back to March where the primary was in 2000.
--
1 The substitute bill inserted a clause raising the presidential primary filing fee to the bill that originally just shifted the presidential primary date and made a few other small changes to the state elections law. See more on the implications of the greater filing fee at Ballot Access News.
Pair of Wisconsin Presidential Primary Bills Set for Tuesday Consideration in the State Assembly
The Wisconsin state Assembly Committee on Rules placed both AB 162 and SB 115 on the chamber's calendar on Thursday. Both bills -- bills to move the Badger state presidential primary from February to April -- will be considered before the full Assembly when the legislature reconvenes on Tuesday for the first day of its September floor period. The Senate version has already passed the upper chamber, and if passed by the Assembly, would bring Wisconsin a step closer to pulling the timing of the presidential primary back into compliance with the national parties' rules on delegate selection.
There has been nothing but bipartisan support of both bills to this point in the legislative process. Both have been shepherded though their respective houses by the chairs of the relevant elections committee chairs -- both of whom are co-sponsors of both bills. The delay in setting the primary date in Wisconsin, then, appears to be more a matter of process than of any sort of political grandstanding or positioning by state-level actors with a goal of reserving a prime spot on the primary calendar (see Arizona). The legislature, with year-round sessions, has the luxury of addressing or revisiting legislation at times with other legislatures -- that have already adjourned for the year -- cannot. The Wisconsin legislature, institutionally, as limited sessions during the back half of the year. The prompt action on the presidential primary legislation -- in terms of setting it up for consideration on the first day the Assembly is back in session -- indicates a certain consensus on the matter in FHQ's eyes. The expectation here is that one or both of these bills will pass in the next week and shift the primary back to April, where it was traditionally scheduled prior to 2004.
There has been nothing but bipartisan support of both bills to this point in the legislative process. Both have been shepherded though their respective houses by the chairs of the relevant elections committee chairs -- both of whom are co-sponsors of both bills. The delay in setting the primary date in Wisconsin, then, appears to be more a matter of process than of any sort of political grandstanding or positioning by state-level actors with a goal of reserving a prime spot on the primary calendar (see Arizona). The legislature, with year-round sessions, has the luxury of addressing or revisiting legislation at times with other legislatures -- that have already adjourned for the year -- cannot. The Wisconsin legislature, institutionally, as limited sessions during the back half of the year. The prompt action on the presidential primary legislation -- in terms of setting it up for consideration on the first day the Assembly is back in session -- indicates a certain consensus on the matter in FHQ's eyes. The expectation here is that one or both of these bills will pass in the next week and shift the primary back to April, where it was traditionally scheduled prior to 2004.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Missouri House Committee OKs Presidential Primary Bill
The Missouri House Elections Committee today unanimously designated HB 3 do pass, sending the special session legislation to the Rules Committee to be placed on the floor calendar. By a 10-0 vote, the committee members advanced the bill to move the Show Me state presidential primary from February 7 to March 6 on the 2012 presidential primary calendar. There appears to be bipartisan support behind the idea of moving the Missouri primary to the later (relative to 2008) March Super Tuesday.
The Rules Committee has no hearings scheduled at this time.
The Rules Committee has no hearings scheduled at this time.
The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality Revisited
It was opportune that Stuart Rothenberg opted to pen an item in Roll Call today about the Republican National Committee rules changes for the 2012 presidential nomination process. FHQ had a revised look at the rules changes in the queue and Rothenberg's piece just adds fuel to the fire. It is another example of the media and commentators getting this wrong. And I couldn't disagree more with Rothenberg's interpretation. He essentially calls the new winner-take-all "restrictions" built into the RNC delegate selection rules a small change with a potential big impact. FHQ has just the opposite reaction:
The rules change is big and the impact potentially small. That the RNC created a panel -- the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee -- to look at and possibly tweak the presidential selection rules was huge in and of itself. But the fact that the TDSC actually altered the rules and curbed the freedom it has in the past allowed states in terms of setting their own delegate selection plans is, in FHQ's view, fairly monumental.
The back end of this is the impact the rules changes will have on the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. As FHQ has stated previously, the rules across the two national parties have been wrongly interpreted in black and white terms: the Democrats have proportionality rules and the Republicans have winner-take-all rules. If any gradience has been added to the RNC rules, it has been to allow for the fact that Republican state parties could have in the past used proportional allocation methods if they so chose. But that misses -- and perhaps rightly so because you can get down in the weeds of this pretty quickly -- the true nature of the Republican rules both past and present. Those interpretations fail to closely examine the differences in allocation across the so-called winner-take-all states.
Again, as I stated previously, the tendency is to think of it in binary terms. It isn't either winner-take-all or proportional in the Republican Party. In fact, there are only a handful of states where the allocation method is truly winner-take-all (The candidate who wins the most votes receives the all of the delegates.). No, instead the winner-take-all states are divided into two main groups: straight winner-take-all states and hybrid winner-take-all states. In 2008, there were 10 truly winner-take-all states and 14 hybrids that divided delegate allocation between the statewide vote and the congressional district vote or provided for some vote percentage threshold (typically 50%) that would trigger the winner-take-all allocation. In other words, under certain conditions, a candidate might or might not win all of the delegates in those hybrid states.
This can get terribly complicated, so let me illustrate this in a different way. Basically, any state Republican Party with a straight winner-take-all system will have to make some alteration to their rules in 2012 if the party is planning on holding a primary before April 1. To reiterate, that is only a handful of states. Of the 24 Republican primary states in 2008 that had some form of winner-take-all allocation (whether straight or hybrid), only seven are currently scheduled or are likely to be scheduled at dates prior to April 1 that also need to make changes to their rules. For the straight winner-take-all states like Arizona or Vermont that could mean any number of changes. The path of least resistance is to split the allocation into statewide and congressional district votes. Only the statewide delegates are required to be proportionally allocated. The congressional district delegates can still be allocated using winner-take-all rules. [More on this in a moment] Another possible route is to create a threshold rule. If one candidate clears the 50% mark in the contest, for instance, that candidate receives all of the delegates. If the majority barrier is not cleared, the rules require a proportional allocation method.
In reality, most states can maintain winner-take-all rules under certain conditions; even before April 1. The proportionality requirement in the new rules only applies to a state's at-large, statewide delegates. Let's parse this out by looking at the breakdown of the delegates at stake in the primary states scheduled or likely to be schedule for pre-April 1 dates.
Again, in looking at this apportionment, the Base and Bonus delegates are the ones that are required to be allocated proportionally in a contest prior to April 1. A threshold can be included in the state parties' delegate selection plans, but if that is not met by one of the candidates, the least amount of change is to simply allocate the those two types of delegates -- the ones allocated based on statewide results -- proportionally and maintain winner-take-all rules for the congressional district delegates. There are a couple of things going on here that bear some mention. First of all, the more loyally Republican a state's voting history has been, the more bonus delegates it receives. That, in turn, means that there are more potential delegates at stake proportionally in that state relative to a more Democratic state. Secondly, smaller states are more disproportionately hit by this restriction because of the 10 base delegates that all states have. In other words, there are fewer district delegates that can be allocated winner-take-all. This is pointed out in the far right column. That accounts for the percentage of the state's total delegates that are open to proportional allocation due to the Republican National Committee's rules change.
[Note also that each state also has three automatic delegates. These are delegates within the Republican Party similar to the Democrats' superdelegates. They are free agents in some states and not in others. Each state has three: one for the state party chair, one for the national committeeman and one more for the national committeewoman.]
The bottom line is that the rules changes will force an alteration of the rules in all true winner-take-all states and some more minor changes to state party delegate selection plans in some of the hybrid winner-take-all systems. The impact of the switch varies based on the two factors discussed above. In 2008, many of the hybrid winner-take-all states looked as if they were true winner-take-all states. Candidates, whether McCain, or Romney or Huckabee were able to do well across the board in a state and win, if not all, then most of a state's delegates. [The hybrid systems I've discussed here are often referred to as winner-take-most states.]
In some ways, then, this is where we have to balance the changes to the rules and the impact that may have with the dynamics of the 2012 race. The rules changes matter, though not to as great a degree as Rothenberg and others have described, but the dynamics are of consequence as well. If the race develops into a two-person Perry-Romney fight, then we could see this play out in any number of ways. The two candidates, on the one hand, could do well in particular areas of the country or among particular demographics that are prevalent in various state -- like the Obama-Clinton race in 2008 -- or we could witness a competitive battle everywhere on the map between those two. In the former instance, the new rules may matter very little. Perry, say, could do very well in the South; to the point that they appear to have been straight winner-take-all contests. Romney could likewise do well in western states or states with high LDS populations and the same would be true in terms of the delegate allocation. But if Perry and Romney end up, on the opposite end of this spectrum, battling evenly everywhere, then the rules changes -- the proportionality requirement becomes more consequential.
In truth, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. One candidate may do well in some states or group of states and minimize the rules change while simultaneously running even with the other in other states, causing the proportionality requirement to be of greater influence.
But one thing is for sure, this rules change is not a complete abolition of winner-take-all allocation in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race. It just isn't.
[NOTE: For the record, FHQ probably should not get so frustrated with the media and analysts when this comes up. At some point the RNC needs to take some heat for not having properly educated the public, and particularly its primary voters, on this matter.]
The rules change is big and the impact potentially small. That the RNC created a panel -- the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee -- to look at and possibly tweak the presidential selection rules was huge in and of itself. But the fact that the TDSC actually altered the rules and curbed the freedom it has in the past allowed states in terms of setting their own delegate selection plans is, in FHQ's view, fairly monumental.
The back end of this is the impact the rules changes will have on the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. As FHQ has stated previously, the rules across the two national parties have been wrongly interpreted in black and white terms: the Democrats have proportionality rules and the Republicans have winner-take-all rules. If any gradience has been added to the RNC rules, it has been to allow for the fact that Republican state parties could have in the past used proportional allocation methods if they so chose. But that misses -- and perhaps rightly so because you can get down in the weeds of this pretty quickly -- the true nature of the Republican rules both past and present. Those interpretations fail to closely examine the differences in allocation across the so-called winner-take-all states.
Again, as I stated previously, the tendency is to think of it in binary terms. It isn't either winner-take-all or proportional in the Republican Party. In fact, there are only a handful of states where the allocation method is truly winner-take-all (The candidate who wins the most votes receives the all of the delegates.). No, instead the winner-take-all states are divided into two main groups: straight winner-take-all states and hybrid winner-take-all states. In 2008, there were 10 truly winner-take-all states and 14 hybrids that divided delegate allocation between the statewide vote and the congressional district vote or provided for some vote percentage threshold (typically 50%) that would trigger the winner-take-all allocation. In other words, under certain conditions, a candidate might or might not win all of the delegates in those hybrid states.
This can get terribly complicated, so let me illustrate this in a different way. Basically, any state Republican Party with a straight winner-take-all system will have to make some alteration to their rules in 2012 if the party is planning on holding a primary before April 1. To reiterate, that is only a handful of states. Of the 24 Republican primary states in 2008 that had some form of winner-take-all allocation (whether straight or hybrid), only seven are currently scheduled or are likely to be scheduled at dates prior to April 1 that also need to make changes to their rules. For the straight winner-take-all states like Arizona or Vermont that could mean any number of changes. The path of least resistance is to split the allocation into statewide and congressional district votes. Only the statewide delegates are required to be proportionally allocated. The congressional district delegates can still be allocated using winner-take-all rules. [More on this in a moment] Another possible route is to create a threshold rule. If one candidate clears the 50% mark in the contest, for instance, that candidate receives all of the delegates. If the majority barrier is not cleared, the rules require a proportional allocation method.
In reality, most states can maintain winner-take-all rules under certain conditions; even before April 1. The proportionality requirement in the new rules only applies to a state's at-large, statewide delegates. Let's parse this out by looking at the breakdown of the delegates at stake in the primary states scheduled or likely to be schedule for pre-April 1 dates.
| 2012 Republican Delegate Apportionment (Early States) | ||||||
| State | Total Delegates | District Delegates | Base Delegates | Bonus Delegates | Automatic Delegates | %Proportional |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH | 23 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 100%1 |
| SC | 50 | 21 | 10 | 16 | 3 | 52% |
| FL | 99 | 81 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 15% |
| AZ | 57 | 27 | 10 | 17 | 3 | 47% |
| MI | 59 | 42 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 24% |
| GA | 75 | 42 | 10 | 20 | 3 | 40% |
| MA | 41 | 27 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 100%1 |
| MO | 53 | 24 | 10 | 16 | 3 | 49% |
| OK | 43 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 3 | 58% |
| TN | 58 | 27 | 10 | 18 | 3 | 100%2 |
| TX | 152 | 108 | 10 | 31 | 3 | 100%2 |
| VT | 17 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 65% |
| VA | 49 | 33 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 27% |
| AL | 50 | 21 | 10 | 16 | 3 | 52% |
| MS | 37 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 3 | 59% |
| IL | 69 | 54 | 10 | 2 | 3 | Loophole |
| LA | 45 | 18 | 10 | 14 | 3 | Caucus/Primary |
| 1 States already have proportional allocation of all delegates. 2 States have either/or allocation rules. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in either the statewide vote or congressional district vote, that candidate nets all the delegates from that unit. If a majority is not won by any candidate, the delegates for each unit are allocated proportionally. Source: The Green Papers | ||||||
Again, in looking at this apportionment, the Base and Bonus delegates are the ones that are required to be allocated proportionally in a contest prior to April 1. A threshold can be included in the state parties' delegate selection plans, but if that is not met by one of the candidates, the least amount of change is to simply allocate the those two types of delegates -- the ones allocated based on statewide results -- proportionally and maintain winner-take-all rules for the congressional district delegates. There are a couple of things going on here that bear some mention. First of all, the more loyally Republican a state's voting history has been, the more bonus delegates it receives. That, in turn, means that there are more potential delegates at stake proportionally in that state relative to a more Democratic state. Secondly, smaller states are more disproportionately hit by this restriction because of the 10 base delegates that all states have. In other words, there are fewer district delegates that can be allocated winner-take-all. This is pointed out in the far right column. That accounts for the percentage of the state's total delegates that are open to proportional allocation due to the Republican National Committee's rules change.
[Note also that each state also has three automatic delegates. These are delegates within the Republican Party similar to the Democrats' superdelegates. They are free agents in some states and not in others. Each state has three: one for the state party chair, one for the national committeeman and one more for the national committeewoman.]
The bottom line is that the rules changes will force an alteration of the rules in all true winner-take-all states and some more minor changes to state party delegate selection plans in some of the hybrid winner-take-all systems. The impact of the switch varies based on the two factors discussed above. In 2008, many of the hybrid winner-take-all states looked as if they were true winner-take-all states. Candidates, whether McCain, or Romney or Huckabee were able to do well across the board in a state and win, if not all, then most of a state's delegates. [The hybrid systems I've discussed here are often referred to as winner-take-most states.]
In some ways, then, this is where we have to balance the changes to the rules and the impact that may have with the dynamics of the 2012 race. The rules changes matter, though not to as great a degree as Rothenberg and others have described, but the dynamics are of consequence as well. If the race develops into a two-person Perry-Romney fight, then we could see this play out in any number of ways. The two candidates, on the one hand, could do well in particular areas of the country or among particular demographics that are prevalent in various state -- like the Obama-Clinton race in 2008 -- or we could witness a competitive battle everywhere on the map between those two. In the former instance, the new rules may matter very little. Perry, say, could do very well in the South; to the point that they appear to have been straight winner-take-all contests. Romney could likewise do well in western states or states with high LDS populations and the same would be true in terms of the delegate allocation. But if Perry and Romney end up, on the opposite end of this spectrum, battling evenly everywhere, then the rules changes -- the proportionality requirement becomes more consequential.
In truth, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. One candidate may do well in some states or group of states and minimize the rules change while simultaneously running even with the other in other states, causing the proportionality requirement to be of greater influence.
But one thing is for sure, this rules change is not a complete abolition of winner-take-all allocation in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race. It just isn't.
[NOTE: For the record, FHQ probably should not get so frustrated with the media and analysts when this comes up. At some point the RNC needs to take some heat for not having properly educated the public, and particularly its primary voters, on this matter.]
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill is Withdrawn from Wisconsin Assembly Committee
On Tuesday, September 6, SB 115 was withdrawn from the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform and reassigned to the Assembly Rules Committee. The Senate-passed bill -- which would shift the Wisconsin presidential primary from the third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April and into compliance with RNC delegate selection rules -- now joins its Assembly counterpart (AB 162) in the Rules Committee. This is relevant not in an overall sense, but because the bills are now being considered in the same place. The Rules Committee could opt to substitute the Assembly bill with the Senate bill and fast-track the process of moving the presidential primary in the Badger state. On the other hand, the committee could also alter the bill -- changing the date -- or simply bottle up the legislation. Both of those options would slow the process down, leaving Wisconsin's position on the calendar unresolved and the overall calendar in limbo.
That said, the fast-track option appears more likely. The Assembly bill has already unanimously passed the Elections and Campaign Reform Committee and the Senate earlier passed -- with no opposition -- its version of the bill on a voice vote. The bill, then, seems to have the support of both parties in the Wisconsin legislature. That includes the Republican majorities in both chambers.
The Rules Committee has no meetings currently scheduled,1 but the legislature is set to reconvene next week for an extended, late-year floor period (September 13-22).
--
1 UPDATE: In the time since FHQ posted this, a meeting notice for tomorrow has been posted for the Assembly Rules Committee. The committee will be in executive session. Additionally, the AP is reporting that the Senate-passed bill (SB 115) will be considered by the Assembly on Tuesday.
That said, the fast-track option appears more likely. The Assembly bill has already unanimously passed the Elections and Campaign Reform Committee and the Senate earlier passed -- with no opposition -- its version of the bill on a voice vote. The bill, then, seems to have the support of both parties in the Wisconsin legislature. That includes the Republican majorities in both chambers.
The Rules Committee has no meetings currently scheduled,1 but the legislature is set to reconvene next week for an extended, late-year floor period (September 13-22).
--
1 UPDATE: In the time since FHQ posted this, a meeting notice for tomorrow has been posted for the Assembly Rules Committee. The committee will be in executive session. Additionally, the AP is reporting that the Senate-passed bill (SB 115) will be considered by the Assembly on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)